Scholarlink

<p>Proponents of the <i>Framework</i> and the <i>NGSS</i> argue that engaging in practice-based science instruction can provide equitable and rigorous science experiences for <i>all</i> learners. Yet, a growing number of scholars have raised concerns that <i>access to</i> language-rich practice-based science instruction does not go far enough for learners from minoritized language backgrounds, and particularly for multilingual learners (MLs), prompting us to question, equity for whom? These critiques have been accompanied by urgent calls to move away from views of <i>equity as access</i> toward views of <i>equity as transformation</i> to truly realize equitable learning for MLs. Toward this goal, researchers have drawn from asset-based pedagogies, including culturally relevant pedagogy, culturally responsive teaching, and culturally sustaining pedagogy, to critically conceptualize what equitable science education might entail for MLs. In this systematic literature review, we used a disciplinary perspective on translanguaging to examine how educational researchers who draw upon asset-based pedagogies in their work defined language and positioned MLs’ language resources within practice-based science instruction. Our findings revealed that educational researchers conceptualized language as either linguistic only or both linguistic and multimodal, which impacted which aspects of MLs’ language resources were made (in)visible. MLs’ language resources were often positioned as a leveraging asset to scaffold disciplinary-specific language development or as an expansive repertoire. As we considered the extent to which reform-oriented instruction and asset-based pedagogies might create equitable learning opportunities for MLs, we identified two tensions: (1) MLs’ named languages (in the context of speaking and writing) are viewed as assets, but primarily to develop academic varieties of English, and (2) MLs’ linguistic and multimodal resources across named languages are leveraged to create an expansive understanding of language, but at times MLs are still expected to develop disciplinary-specific language resources.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Equity for whom? Synthesizing examinations of multilingual learners’ language practices across asset-based science education research

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月30日

查看全文
  • Karina Méndez Pérez,
  • María González-Howard,
  • Sage Andersen

摘要

Proponents of the Framework and the NGSS argue that engaging in practice-based science instruction can provide equitable and rigorous science experiences for all learners. Yet, a growing number of scholars have raised concerns that access to language-rich practice-based science instruction does not go far enough for learners from minoritized language backgrounds, and particularly for multilingual learners (MLs), prompting us to question, equity for whom? These critiques have been accompanied by urgent calls to move away from views of equity as access toward views of equity as transformation to truly realize equitable learning for MLs. Toward this goal, researchers have drawn from asset-based pedagogies, including culturally relevant pedagogy, culturally responsive teaching, and culturally sustaining pedagogy, to critically conceptualize what equitable science education might entail for MLs. In this systematic literature review, we used a disciplinary perspective on translanguaging to examine how educational researchers who draw upon asset-based pedagogies in their work defined language and positioned MLs’ language resources within practice-based science instruction. Our findings revealed that educational researchers conceptualized language as either linguistic only or both linguistic and multimodal, which impacted which aspects of MLs’ language resources were made (in)visible. MLs’ language resources were often positioned as a leveraging asset to scaffold disciplinary-specific language development or as an expansive repertoire. As we considered the extent to which reform-oriented instruction and asset-based pedagogies might create equitable learning opportunities for MLs, we identified two tensions: (1) MLs’ named languages (in the context of speaking and writing) are viewed as assets, but primarily to develop academic varieties of English, and (2) MLs’ linguistic and multimodal resources across named languages are leveraged to create an expansive understanding of language, but at times MLs are still expected to develop disciplinary-specific language resources.